Divorced Daughter Not Entitled to Compassionate Appointment Unless Proved That She Was Dependent on Her Father: Allahabad HC

Recently,  Justice J.J. Munir at the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition of Akhtari Khatoon, a married daughter seeking a family pension and compassionate appointment on the demise of her father, Nasir Ahmad, who was employed as a Centrifugal Mechanic by the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited.

The petitioner, represented by counsels Balendra Deo Misra and Ram Ji Singh, had approached the court seeking a family pension and compassionate appointment after the demise of her father. Akhtari Khatoon claimed to be the only legal heir of her late father and had applied for the payment of her father’s retiral dues. However, her petition has been dismissed by the court.

In the judgment, Justice Munir remarked, “The petitioner has not shown with full particulars how she was dependent upon her father at the time of his demise.” The court observed that Akhtari Khatoon had failed to establish her dependency on her deceased father, a crucial factor for consideration in such cases.

The court further noted, “The petitioner has not pleaded material facts and particulars to show how she was herself dependent on her deceased father at the time of his demise.” It found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of dependency.

In her petition, Akhtari Khatoon cited the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (DB), where Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, was struck down. However, the court held that this did not automatically entitle her to family pension and compassionate appointment.

The court referred to the case of State of U.P. and another v. Madhavi Mishra and others, 2021(9) ADJ 529 (DB), where it was held that a married daughter is not included in the definition of ‘family’ under the Rules of 1975. Justice Munir emphasized that the Rules of 1975, which apply to the Corporation, do not include married daughters in the definition of ‘family’.

Also Read

Counsels representing the respondents, Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi and Ms. Monika Arya, argued that Akhtari Khatoon was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. They contended that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to mention her mother’s eligibility to receive a family pension.

In its conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that no mandamus could be issued to the respondents to consider Akhtari Khatoon’s claim for family pension or compassionate appointment. 

Case Name: Akhtari Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. and others

Case No.: – WRIT – A No. – 13833 of 2023 

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir

Order Dated: 02.4.2024

Related Articles

Latest Articles